DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The previous rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments filed in the Appeal Brief on December 29, 2025. However, a new set of rejections in light of Hata (US 2017/259626) is applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claim(s) 19, 20, 22-24, 26, 27, and 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata.
As best depicted in Figures 1 and 2, Hata teaches a tire construction comprising a carcass 13, bead cores 11, a belt assembly 14 including belt layers 141, 142, and 143, an innerliner 18, a tie rubber layer 19, and sidewalls 16 (Paragraphs 40 and 63). In such an instance, the combination of innerliner 18 and tie rubber layer 19 corresponds with the claimed “carcass inner rubber layer”. Additionally, the tire of Hata includes a linear conductive pattern 52 having an electrical resistivity less than 1x 108 Ω/cm (Paragraph 73) and extending continuously at least from one of the bead portions to the belt layer. See the modified figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In such an instance, though, conductive portion 52 is positioned between tie rubber layer 19 and carcass layer 13 and such does not constitute a conductive portion “at least partially positioned in the carcass inner rubber layer”.
A fair reading of Hata does not limit the placement of a conductive portion to between a tie rubber layer and a carcass layer. Figures 9 and 11, for example, depict the inclusion of a conductive portion between a carcass layer and a sidewall. Similarly, Figures 13 and 15 depict the inclusion of a conductive portion on a tire inner surface and a tire outer surface, respectively. The critical feature of Hata is the inclusion of a complete conductive path from the ground contacting tread to the wheel rim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position conductive portion 52 in alternative locations so long as the aforementioned conductive path is achieved. More particularly, the placement of a conductive portion between innerliner 18 and tie rubber layer 19 remains consistent with the desire of Hata to provide a complete conductive path. The following components would define the conductive path: earthing tread 51, belt layers 14, carcass layers 13, tie rubber layer 19, conductive portion 52, and rim cushion rubber 17. Alternatively, an earthing tread having a greater radial extension and contacting said conductive portion would provide a complete conductive path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position a conductive portion between an innerliner and a tie rubber layer (and thus at least partially in the carcass inner rubber layer) given the extremely limited number of locations and the fact that such a placement provides a complete conductive path. It is further noted that Hata desires a small distance, preferably less than 0.5 mm, between a conductive portion and an innerliner (Paragraph 91). The placement of a conduction portion between the inner liner and the tie rubber provides the smallest distance between a conductive portion and an innerliner and thus, such a placement would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Hata teaches a lap width La that is at least 3 mm (Paragraph 87). Given that an exemplary tire construction has a tire section width of 195 mm (Paragraph 141), it is evident that a lap width is necessarily between 0.01 and 1 times a maximum belt width (belt width is less than tire section width).
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Figure 8 depicts a tire construction in which conductive portion 52 is in contact with a conductive rim cushion rubber (low resistivity) having direct contact with a wheel rim (chafer 20 is embedded in or disposed within rim cushion rubber) (Paragraph 54).
As to claim 24, Figures 1 and 2 depict the claimed arrangement.
Regarding claims 30-34, Hata states that the conductive portion can be an intertwined plurality of electrically conductive linear members (alone or in combination with non-conductive linear members such as polyester) or can be a monofilament cord of electrically conductive material (e.g. metal or carbon) (Paragraphs 72, 73, and 76).
With respect to claim 35, Hata teaches the claimed linear density (Paragraph 81).
As to claim 36, Hata teaches the claimed elongation ration (Paragraph 83).
5. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata as applied in claim 19 and further in view of Matsumura (US 2007/0209744, of record).
As detailed above, the tire of Hata includes an innerliner and a tie rubber layer. While Hata is silent with respect to the dimensions of the innerliner and the tie rubber layer, conventional thickness values would have resulted in a tire satisfying the claimed quantitative relationship. Matsumura, for example, is similarly directed to a tire including an innerliner and a tie rubber layer, wherein an innerliner thickness is 1.2 mm and an tie rubber thickness is 0.8 mm (Paragraph 37). This results in a claimed ratio of 0.6 (when the conductive portion is positioned between the innerliner and the tie rubber layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the tire of Hata with a quantitative relationship in accordance to the claimed invention since such appears to result from using conventional dimensions for the innerliner and the tie rubber layer.
6. Claim(s) 25, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hata as applied in claim 19 and further in view of Dheur (US 6,289,958, newly cited) and/or Hoshino (US 2017/0197480, newly cited).
As detailed above, the modified tire of Hata would include a conductive portion between an innerliner and a tie rubber layer. Hata, however, is silent with respect to the manner in which said portion is arranged within the tire construction.
In any event, sewing is a well-known and conventional manner in which reinforcements or cords are attached to tire components, as shown for example by Hoshino (Paragraphs 11 and 41) and Dheur (Figure 3A). It is particularly noted that the sewing depicted by Dheur appears to be extremely similar to that of the claimed invention and thus, the claimed inclination angles would be expected to result in the modified tire of Hata (regarding claim 25). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to attach the conductive portion of Hata to an inner liner or tie rubber layer via sewing as such constitutes a known attachment means in similar tires comprising conductive cords, with the claimed angles specifically resulting from the method of Dheur.
Regarding claim 29, the method of Hoshino includes a sewing pitch between 2 mm and 40 mm (Paragraph 11) and such is seen to encompass the broad range of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 16-18, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 28-34 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hata.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights